Unfair practice
Comments
-
The whole CL system seems very hit and miss. For example the home made T's & C's of Barleywood, the example you used above, are so one sided in favour of the owner, that they constitute an unfair and therefore unenforceable contract,
Guess you won't be going there then, which is good for those that do not have your concerns and enjoy visiting the site.
0 -
I'm not a member so would not be going there in any event...in theory. However, unfair and unenforceable terms are a two way street. The customer is left in a very powerful position as the seller has no T's & C's to fall back on and will always be seen in a poor light for attempting to impose such terms.
0 -
A site I know was a CS with the other Club and although it has grown a bit, that particular farm based site still has the same owners. Perhaps like the CL owner who posted earlier on here they were plagued by “no shows” and requests for refunds.
So they now say it’s £50 to make a booking and full payment is due two weeks in advance. I suggest they only need to add one other sentence. “ iIn the event of a cancellation after that date we will refund moneys paid if we are able to rebook the pitch, but we recommend our visitors to have a UK only travel insurance in place to cover losses for other cancellations”. Pretty simple terms and conditions.
Their customers don’t grumble and the site still scores 10 out of 20 on their UKCS reviews.0 -
As ever, it depends how you look at things. I have every sympathy for CL operators and perhaps you would too if you’d used some…..
Ultimately, the customer always has the choice of going elsewhere if the T&Cs don’t suit but plenty of people seem happy to agree to what's on offer so I think your concerns are probably groundless.
1 -
Such as? I think you’re looking for problems that don’t exist.
Why not join CAMC and try a few CLs and then pass a valid judgement?
3 -
Things do go wrong, but with goodwill & discussion I’ve not been left wanting. Negativity rarely gets things done, add to that experience is everything it carries weight in the big scheme of things👍🏻
1 -
But is it reasonable to ask for 2 free nights when the issue was not caused by the CL owner and could easily have been remedied by the OP nipping out and buying a cheap fan heater?
The CL owner would have lost income for the 2 replacement nights so was it intransigence or good business sense?🤷♂️
2 -
An agreement existed to pay for those 2 particular nights. The OP asked to vary that and was refused.
Whether the owner re-let the pitch for the original 2 nights is somewhat academic as the OP broke the original agreement. However, most folk in the site owner's situation would allow a refund/rescheduling if re-letting occurred but I see no obligation to do so as, if there was a refund or a move to another date, it would be a credit to the OP's 'account' at a cost to the site owner.
It's all down to contract terms, whether written or verbal, and adherence to them as you are fond of telling us😄
1 -
Let’s face it, if the OP hadn’t made such a fuss and posted on here, you’d have nothing to talk about😂😂
2 -
Nah, chalk and cheese 😁
2 -
With due respect that’s twice you’ve answered for LLM, there is no need at all my post was quite benign. You answering for him makes him look weak, I’m surprised he hasn’t mentioned it. I will refer you to my esteemed friend Tinwheelers post😊
3 -
Perhaps they are of the same mind?
1 -
Thanks👍🏻, if that is the case why do you insist on answering for him🤷🏻♂️🤔
2 -
If I had an issue with you I’d do just that re community manager👍🏻. I was hoping you’d answer my question of why you persist in answering for LLM when I post to him🤷🏻♂️
2 -
I haven't picked on the idea that LLM appears to be more legally knowledgeable than you, after all you are/were a JP, (in addition to being aircrew, working with the best scientific minds, and spend a life buying and selling large amounts of money and equipment) but perhaps you some how know him better than the rest of us?
Going back to the OP and the thread. The OP paid for seven nights, but decided through no fault of the CL owner to leave early, why should they expect any consideration back, they can certainly ask but the answer was no.
The CL owner is entitled to act in the way that is reasonable to him/her. It is after all, literally, their business to run as they see fit.
0 -
I would say you and LLM are pretty much on a par, DD. You both seem to think the CL owner was in the wrong when he was perfectly entitled to act as he did. In fact your posts are quite interchangeable but that doesn’t make them legally valid or right but, as I said to you before, just opinion in the same way as others.
1 -
selective posting there DLM? did you miss out large amounts of equipment? Btw did that entail money or was it all free?
Also while we're here you posted:
The CL owner would not have lost anything, but by refusing the reasonable request he has capitalised on the OP's misfortune.
Now not being as legally minded as you I take to capitalise as meaning: take the chance to gain advantage from or make money from. But if the CL owner would not have lost anything either way as you pointed out (and the OP did not expect any refunds remember) how has the CL owner capitalised on the OP's misfortune? In what way, what advantage has the CL owner gained?
Also you saying it is reasonable doesn't make it true or a fact?
Now the person who fixes the OP's problem will, unless they do it for nothing, capitalise from their misfortune, are you going to mention that too?
0
